Hey, remember that photowalk thing I organized last week? It was a great success – and we’ll be doing more. The Cambridge photowalks even have a new online home! If you’re interested in participating in a future photowalk, be sure to visit photowalking.ca/cambridge/ and subscribe to email updates!
Btw, here’s a little wrapup video I did:
ShareHey photogs, a quick reminder that the first Cambridge Photowalk happens this Sunday at Southworks. Share the video below with all of your Cambridge-area shutterbugs.
ShareLocal photographer John Mitchell (whom I have known since he did our wedding photos a decade ago) blogged yesterday about a portrait he did and the processing required to “finish” it.
In the post, John draws parallels between digital processing and film developing. This is an argument I’ve made many times when accused of “cheating” by adjusting the colour or saturation in Photoshop. The great film developers employed similar “tricks” in the darkroom – remixing chemicals, over- and under- developing the negatives, etc. In fact, most of the standard Photoshop techniques actually attempt to mimic techniques originally developed in the darkroom.
Here’s a quote from John’s blog (wherein he shares a gem of a quote from Ansel Adams.)
ShareThe truth that you cannot make a great print from a lousy negative is even more valid with digital. The capture must be more than just acceptable. …
But, Ansel Adams also knew the importance of print making. One of his more famous sayings is, “The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.”
via Photography.
I take LOTS of photos – too many, probably – and very few of those photos could be considered art. I also look at LOTS of photos online – most of them would be considered art.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what makes a photo so compelling that we think of it as art. Of the photos I’ve encountered that qualify, two characteristics are usually, though not always, present.
Some of the most compelling images I’ve seen are black and white (or other monochrome) photos. When processing my own photos, a simple “B&W conversion” almost always improves the photo – though rarely makes it compelling on its own.
The other oft-present characteristic is what’s called “shallow depth of field“. This is the effect where “focal plane” – the distance from the lens that is in focus – is very thin. Most photos have a broad depth of field – to the extent that everything in the image is more or less in focus. In photos with extremely shallow depth of field the focal plane can be so narrow that a subject’s eyes are in focus but the nose and ears are not. This is because the nose and ears are nearer and farther, respectively, from the camera than the eyes are.
Neither one of these techniques (they’re never really accidental) – even combined – can make a boring photo compelling, but they do appear more often than not on compelling photos.
My theory is that these photos are compelling because they present the world differently than we see it. We see in colour, and generally with a broad depth of field or at least the focal plane moves so quickly we don’t really notice.
It reminds me somewhat of the impressionist movement of the 19th century. Renoir, Monet, and the others presented an “impression” of reality that was recognizable but not quite the way our own eyes saw things.
There are a few other less common techniques that also provide this “impression” of reality: fisheye lenses, macro, long exposure, light painting, etc.
This is not to say, of course, that a photograph that represents exactly what the eye would see cannot be art. Many “realistic” photos tell fantastic stories and evoke tremendous emotional responses (think National Geographic) and can be just as compelling.
I think I prefer, however, to stay in the impressionist camp of photography for now – if only because it lets me hide most of my technical mistakes.
Share
Ok, it’s probably not the very first photowalk in Cambridge ever, but it is the first of several I will be organizing this year. What is a photowalk, you ask? We’ll get to that in a moment, but first the details for those that need them right now!
When: Sunday, January 29th @ 2pm
Where: Southworks Outlet Mall (64 Grand Avenue South, Cambridge, Ontario N1S 2L8)
(important venue info below, if you plan to participate, please read through.)
UPDATE: Please RSVP here: http://twtvite.com/swphotowalk
Ok, so when and where are covered, let’s talk about what this is all about. A photowalk is simply a group of photographers of all skills and ages gathering together at a specific time and place to go for a walk and take photos. Photowalks not only provide an opportunity to practice the art of photography, but they also provide an informal time for photo enthusiasts to be social – something that doesn’t often happen in workshops and seminars.
I should also note that this isn’t a photography club. There are no dues, no committee, no weekly or monthly meeting. Photowalks are open events with no obligation to join anything.
Most times, photowalks take place in public spaces and there are few, if any, rules or guidelines. This particular photowalk, however, will be a little different in two ways:
For this photowalk, we will be the guests of Southworks Outlet Mall. The photowalk has been arranged and approved by the property management with a few conditions:
If you are not familiar with Southworks, it is beautiful old foundry restored into a commercial space – including the largest antiques warehouse in Canada.
Things you can expect to shoot:
Update: I made a little video…
Official hashtag is: #swphotowalk
Share
photo credti: Lee Haywood
Just a month into my journey as a “serious photographer” and I’ve developed my very first “trick of the trade” – how exciting! I haven’t actually looked to see if anyone has already included this in a tutorial of some kind, so it’s possible that this isn’t completely original.
The Scenario:
I spent the morning taking “staff portraits” at the office. In the past, we’ve always had to scramble to get a decent photo of someone when we needed it – either for the website or a workshop bio, etc. We decided to take semi-formal portraits of all staff just to have on file.
The Problem:
It was, of course, the final subject of the day that caused the “problem.” She was a blinker – a bad one! A few of the earlier subject had one or two shots out of four or five where their eyes were closed, but this subject was something else. She knew it too – she told me that she always either has her eyes closed, or she looks like she’s on opiates. I couldn’t disagree with her. Twenty-five shots later, experimenting with various flash settings and delays, etc, we STILL didn’t have a shot with her eyes open.
The Solution:
The answer was hers, actually. She was telling me that she’d run into the same problem at the optometrist’s office – they could not get a clear image of her retina because she kept blinking. “The only thing that finally worked,” she said, “was for me to click the remote.” I hesitated. “You want to try?”
She took the remote, closed her eyes, and then opened them as she pressed the remote (in her lap, out of frame). Bingo. The first shot was a keeper. Eyes nice and clear – naturally open. In fact, her entire posture improved and it might be the best portrait of the day. Interesting.
Conclusion:
If you’re taking portraits, I wouldn’t recommend handing off your remote to every subject. If you run into a stubborn blinker, however, it might just save your shoot.
Share
I'm a digital communications executive specializing in community engagement, social marketing, digital publishing and syndication, and digital media relations. I'm currently head of the national Communications Office at The Presbyterian Church in Canada.
I can be found on LinkedIn and Twitter and Facebook.
